So either our legislators are complete self-interested morons (very likely) or there is a conspiracy to keep us on fossil fuels (also likely), but there is still no good reason why we aren't all using nuclear energy to power nearly 100% of our electricity.
Trump is perhaps the only thing that would ever change this situation. MAGA=4th gen MSR and Thorium fuel cycle. Spam the Trump kids' twitter accounts until we have a footing!
Post your links to Thorium-related vids and infographics.
It's really too bad that the transition to thorium didn't go through... Who'd have thought that weaponized uranium is of greater value than cobalt and other rare earth minerals? And that 200 year half life + only 2% of end result being waste... Well, shit, problem practically solves itself... conspiracy indeed.
Sebastian Lopez
>muh meltdown
Ayden Gonzalez
No, because low heat salt reactor designs essentially eliminate that risk with a neutralization gravity basin.
basically, thorium meltdowns are inconvenient, not catastrophic. Yall could use less nuclear disasters down there btw
Luis Miller
bump
thorium is really interesting shit
Tyler Cox
How do the economics work out for thorium? Genuinely curious.
Jackson Roberts
isn't there still a fair amount of development needed before a proper molten salt cooled thorium reactor can be built?
Xavier Baker
LIQUID FUEL THORIUM REACTORS HIGH ENERGY TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN BETTER THAN EVER BEFORE youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4
Aaron Edwards
From what I understand the reason is mostly because the country is run by companies that are still using fossil fuels
The switch to thorium would mean these companies would have to build new infrastructure, find people trained to work with nuclear energy, etc.
Its just a lot of money that they don't necessarily need to spend, considering they rake in unreal bank with their current setup
Also thorium apparently doesn't produce plutonium as a byproduct and that makes it less useful to the gov't when it comes to purchasing fissile material for weapons from the companies
Im not really sure if thats all true, mostly sounds like a conspiracy theory and I don't know too much about the US energy sector to begin with
Juan Kelly
Thorium is generally cheaper, safer, purer, and more abundant in its natural form than uranium.
Most existing nuclear facilities could be converted easily.
We could see nuclear weapons research lose funding, while also seeing the cost of digital technology plummet due to a sudden spike in the availability of rare earth minerals. There would also be a shift in management of current nuclear waste that's accumulated over the past 50 years.
Not particularly, most of the technology for that has been around since at least the 1960's, but wasn't chosen for one simple reason - You can't make bombs from the biproduct.
Jacob Adams
Exxon only has a 3% profit margin.
Anthony Evans
Trump said like a dozen times he would pursue an "all of the above" energy policy.
Hunter Martinez
>conspiracy
As I see it and correct me if I' wrong....
It's less a conspiracy and more a "we have a large part of the economy based on this and it will fuck a lot of people up if it's taken away/changed and you wont get re-elected"
type thing.
Jacob Mitchell
4th Gen reactors are still inefficient as fuck which is a reason cost is so high. They really aren't all that much better than Gen 3, but they are a lot safer. I don't even think Gen 3s are allowed to be built in the US anymore all the ones in operation right now we're built back I'm the 90s. Though if I remember correctly there are two or three Gen 4s being built in Tennessee. Even though at best you get about a 5% efficiency rate we are still able to power 20% of the US with around 100 facilities.
Because of all the safety standards required, building nuclear reactors is extremely expensive and can take like 2 decades to cover your investment. Unless the government wants to subsidize the cost I don't see a lot of people wanting to put the time and effort into building new facilities. I guess we could lower regulations on them as well but I don't think that's a good idea.
Xavier Cox
>Meltdown Muh containment pit. Even if it meltdown though it pours down into a large concrete bottle filled with inhibitors and is kept so until it freezes.
Modern reactors can melt down, just the cooling and have every possible failure in the same time and still nothing happens.
Fukishima was older than chernobyl, you should have replaced it sooner.
Eli Wright
We've got our wildcard president now and he's repeatedly expressed the importance of energy independence. Innovation and upgrades to energy infrastructure are a pathway towards that policy objective.
Plus, a longterm reduction in energy costs increases the efficiency of production which means jobs in manufacturing come back.
Ian Evans
If she doesn't have a penis, I'm not interested
Jaxson Harris
I wonder how the NotMyPresident crowd will react to Trump encouraging nuclear energy
I imagine they would just all go anti-nuclear on a dime just to spite him
I'm told that the no-bombs available idea is largely a myth. It had mostly to do with the fact that uranium light water reactor was the type of reactor the navy had put up the 10 million to research, so who was going to come up with another 10 million to make this exotic-sounding reactor.
At Oak Ridge National Laboratories, of course they did come up with that exotic reactor, but only because they wanted to make it small and light enough that it could fit on a bomber so that the bomber would not have to land for weeks at a time. The development of ICBMs put a stop to the need for atomic-powered bombers, so the funding for the MSR was cut.
The amazing thing is how it was abandoned and forgotten so quickly, when it has so many huge advantages over the LWRs deployed.
This would be Trump's legacy secured for eternity.
Joshua Cruz
Maybe the technology isn't good enough or cheap enough to be a smart thing to buy into just yet.
Austin Hill
I really think he should consider this option. They would go "nuclear" over it though. The radioactive biproducts are low half life when isolated. It's not "no bombs", but rather "less bombs & significantly weaker" If you have a source for the claim about powering bombers, I'd love to read that. Sounds like useful info.
Thorium is the best to fuck over all those Jihadis and their sponsors to get of the black crap.
No more reliance on oil, they starve. West wins.
Brayden Jackson
>disinfo.com Not sure how much I trust that source
Sidebar is showing >Men have Clitoruses >Beginners guide to sigil craft >13 Year Old Boy Has Time Machine Plan That Works
Brandon Jenkins
i wrote it
that's right you alphabet fucks, that's ME!
Jayden Hill
Saw the name of the site, read it anyway. Still wasn't sure, but now I'm 100% sure Don't trust the source.
There's plenty of info out there though, it's all just a search away I guess. Too lazy to dig right now, but listening to lectures on the subject is cozy.
